AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Versions Compared

Old Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Ariel Liang

Saved on

compared with

New Version 4

changes.mady.by.user Alan Greenberg

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...


For information about this Public Comment, please click here 
Toggle Cloak

Cloak
visibletrue
bluedefranceAliceblue2dashedbluedefrance2

Brief Overview

Purpose: Per its resolution of 28 July 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-28-en#1.c), the ICANN Board has directed that proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws be posted for public comment prior to ICANN Board consideration.

Current Status: During its meeting on 24 June 2015, the GNSO Council unanimously adopted the recommendations of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf), which was tasked to address a number of questions as they relate to GNSO policy and implementation. Among others, these recommendations include three proposed new GNSOprocesses, two of which—the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP)—require changes to the ICANN Bylaws1 subject to ICANN Board approval.

Next Steps: The ICANN Board will review the input received in response to the public comment proceeding as part of its consideration of the GNSO Policy & Implementation recommendations.

1These proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws are accompanied by a GGP and EPDP Manual, which can be found in Annex D and F of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Final Report (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf) and would be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures following adoption of the proposedICANN Bylaws changes by the ICANN Board.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

During its meeting on 24 June 2015, the GNSO Council unanimously adopted the recommendations of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf) which was tasked to address a number of questions as they relate to GNSO policy and implementation. Among others, these recommendations include three proposed new GNSOprocesses, two of which—the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP)—require changes to the ICANN Bylaws2. These new processes are intended to provide the GNSO Council with more flexibility to address policy issues through formal processes to be used if specific criteria are met:

  • GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) – to be used in those instances for which the GNSOCouncil intends to provide guidance that is required to be considered by the ICANNBoard, but which is not expected to result in new contractual obligations for contracted parties. Guidance developed through a GGP means advice that has a binding force on theICANN Board to consider the guidance and it can only be rejected by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, if the Board determines that such guidance is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. It is expected that this would typically involve clarification of, or advice on existing gTLD policy recommendations. This could be in response to a specific request from the ICANN Board but could also be at the initiative of the GNSO Council to an issue that has been identified. For example, such a process could have been used in relation to the request from the ICANN Board to provide input on the .brand registry agreement, specification 13.
  • GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process – to be used in those instances in which the GNSO Council intends to develop recommendations that would result in new contractual obligations for contracted parties that meet the criteria for "consensus policies"3 as well as the qualifying criteria to initiate an expedited PDP. Those qualifying criteria are (1) to address a narrowly defined policy issue that was identified and scoped after either the adoption of a GNSO policy recommendation by the ICANN Board or the implementation of such an adopted recommendation; or (2) to provide new or additional policy recommendations on a specific policy issue that had been substantially scoped previously, such that extensive, pertinent background information already exists, e.g. (a) in an Issue Report for a possible policy development process that was not initiated;  (b) as part of a previous PDP that was not completed; or (c) through other projects such as a GGP.

Per its resolution of 28 July 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-28-en#1.c), the ICANN Board has directed that proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws [PDF, 656 KB] be posted for public comment prior to ICANN Board consideration.

2These proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws are accompanied by a GGP and EPDP Manual, which can be found in Annex D and F of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Final Report (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf) and would be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures following adoption of the proposedICANN Bylaws changes by the ICANN Board.

3For further information about “consensus policies,” please seehttp://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/consensus-policy/about.

Section II: Background

Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related issues of the new generic Top-Level Doman (gTLD) program, there has been an increased focus on which topics call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which processes should be used, at what time and how issues which are the subject of diverging opinions during the implementation process should be acted upon. Following several discussions, including the publication of a staff discussion paper and a community session during the ICANN46, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council decided in July 2013 to form a Working Group (WG) which was tasked to develop a set of recommendations on:

  • A set of principles to underpin future GNSO policy and implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO Operating Procedures.
  • A process for developing gTLD policy, possibly in the form of "Policy Guidance," including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for developing policy other than "Consensus Policy") instead of a GNSO Policy Development Process;
  • A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO policy recommendations;
  • Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and
  • Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDPManual, are expected to function and operate.

The WG issued an Initial Report for public comment in January 2015. Following review of all public comments received, the WG completed its deliberations and submitted its Final Report containing all its consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council on 2 June 2015. The Final Report includes a set of Policy and Implementation Principles and Requirements as well as a set of Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles and Guidelines developed by the WG to guide future GNSO policy and implementation work. In addition, three new processes were recommended by the WG:

  • A GNSO Input Process (through which the GNSO can provide feedback on non-gTLDpolicy matters),
  • A GNSO Guidance Process (through which the GNSO can provide guidance on adoptedgTLD policies), and
  • An Expedited GNSO Policy Development Process (to supplement the existing GNSO PDPfor suitably limited issues not resulting in the creation of binding Consensus Policies onICANN’s Contracted Parties).

The WG also recommended that, where use of the processes is currently discretionary, theGNSO Council should mandate the use of them for future adopted gTLD policies, except in exceptional circumstances. The GNSO Council unanimously adopted all the recommendations during its meeting on 24 June 2015.

Section III: Relevant Resources

Section IV: Additional Information

Section V: Reports

Staff Contact

Marika Konings
policy-staff@icann.org

 

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

...

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

ALAC and At-Large representatives were very active in the Policy and Implementation Working Group and the ALAC

...

supports the recommendations.

The ALAC nonetheless has two concerns that have been raised throughout the WG processes.

  1. GNSO processes allow participation from all communities, and so in theory can equitably balance all issues. However, given that contracted parties can be greatly impacted by GNSO policy decision outcomes, they have strong motivation to actively participate in policy development working groups, and are often well funded to do so. Those representing users and the public interest such as At-Large or non-commercial users’ constituencies are less able to participate on the same level. Accordingly, it is possible for WG participation to be unbalanced. Moreover, within the GNSO Council, the Contracted House Stakeholder Groups acting in unison can block a super-majority approval of any prospective recommendation. As a result, the ALAC has concerns that if an issue were to arise where the public interest and the needs of users is in conflict with the needs of contracted parties, the GNSO may not be able to arrive at an equitable solution.
  2. Although the principle of referring all policy-like issues encountered during implementation back to the GNSO for resolution supports the concept of the GNSO being the sole gTLD policy body, the ALAC is concerned that for complex implementations such as the new gTLD process and future directory services solutions, the number of such referrals may unreasonably elongate the overall implementation process.

As stated above, the ALAC supports the recommended processes, but Advises the Board to carefully monitor both issues to ensure that user and public interests are appropriately considered and that the implementation of complex policy can be accomplished in reasonable time-framesThe final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.


 

...

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.